The Two Tests: The Supernatural Claims of Christianity Tried By Two Of Its Own Rules Part 3

These two pa.s.sages, on comparison, _show that Jehovah himself was the Satan_ of David in this instance.

Job i. 6-12; ii. 1-8.--On the day when the sons of G.o.d came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan (the adversary) came also among them.

The Lord asked whence he came. Satan (the adversary) replied, "From going to and fro on the earth." Then followed a discussion with reference to Job's piety. Satan (the adversary) suggested that Job's service of G.o.d was not for nought; that if the Lord took away his wealth he would curse. The Lord replied, "Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only on himself put not forth thine hand." Soon Job lost his cattle, his servants, his children. He resignedly said, "The Lord gave and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord." On a second similar occasion Satan (the adversary) suggested that if Job's person were touched he would "curse thee (the Lord) to thy face." The Lord said, "Behold, he is in thy hand, but spare his life." Satan (the adversary) smote Job with sore boils from head to foot. But he said, "Shall we receive good at the hand of G.o.d, and shall we not receive evil?"

Here Job's adversary came into the presence of the Lord, among the sons of G.o.d, and discussed Job's case with Jehovah himself. Is the conception, then, that he was a messenger of the Lord, walking up and down through the earth, contemplating its inhabitants; that his observation had shown him--if men then were like what they are now--that calamities were not borne with patience, that penury and complaints, losses and curses, went together; so that, when asked his opinion about the well-to-do Job, he would not give him credit for being different to his fellows? In this way he became his Satan or adversary. This appears to be what the writer would convey. But how unlike the "roaring lion" of the New Testament.

It will be noticed how strictly the power of Job's adversary is limited to what Jehovah specifically permitted. So much so, that when the calamities actually fell on Job he described them as from the Lord.

In no way whatever does the Satan here mentioned act in opposition to Jehovah.

Zech. iii. 1, 2--"And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan (the adversary) standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan (the adversary), The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan, even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel."

The conception here may be this: Joshua, with the filthy garments (figurative of the sins of Judah borne by the high priest, their representative), standing before the angel of the Lord, was resisted by "the adversary," or angel of divine justice. But the latter had to give way before the restoration of the divine favour. Or, more probably, "the adversary" may have been one of those who opposed the work of rebuilding Jerusalem, as mentioned in the Book of Ezra.

All these considerations show conclusively that in the Old Testament conception of the Almighty there is _no room for_ such a being as the arch-fiend of the New.

(e) _The supernatural appearances at the crucifixion_ (Matt, xxvii.

51-53; Mark xv. 38; Luke xxiii. 44, 45).

(1.) The veil of the temple rent in twain from the top to the bottom.

(2.) The earthquake and rending of the rocks.

(3.) Darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour. (4.) The opening of the graves and the rising of the bodies of the saints after his resurrection, who went into the holy city, and appeared to many.

_John_ makes no mention of these marvels, but (xix. 25-27)states that he himself was present at the crucifixion of Jesus, along with Mary, Jesus'

mother, and three other women, close to the cross (not afar off, as Matthew, Mark, and Luke a.s.sert of the women), and yet he fails to confirm the other Gospels as to the earthquake and darkening of the sun.

The rending of the veil of the temple, the opening of the graves, and the appearance of the risen saints would all have been known to him also, if they had occurred.

Such prodigies as these are not confined to the Gospels,--"In the most high and palmy state of Rome, A little ere the mightiest Julius fell, The graves stood tenantless, and the sheeted dead Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets," &c.

CHAPTER III. THE MIRACLES

1. The miracles ascribed to Jesus are,--

[Ill.u.s.tration: table 055]

[Ill.u.s.tration: table 056]

The healing power claimed for Jesus in the pa.s.sages marked (a) embraces all manner of sickness, disease, and derangement. Cures were effected by his word or his touch, or upon the patient laying hold even of the hem of his garment. The contemporaneous unbelief (Matt. xi. 20-24.) of his pretensions, with such instances of superhuman power openly manifested far and wide (Matt. iv. 23-25, and ix. 35) among the cities and villages of Galilee, is the crowning marvel of all.

The special instances of his wonder-working and disease-curing power, marked (6), (c), (d), and (e), comprise all that are recorded in the four Gospels. The agreement between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, both as to the incidents and the manner of narration, is most marked. The raising of the son of the widow of Nain, the miraculous draught of fishes at the calling of Peter, James, and John, a cure of dropsy and one of infirmity are given by Luke alone. On the other hand, Luke has not the walking on the sea, the feeding of the four thousand, the cursing of the fig-tree, or the curing of the Canaanite's demon-possessed daughter, found in Matthew and Mark. And Matthew alone narrates the catching of the fish with the tribute money. But in the other instances the agreement between them is almost complete--so complete as to suggest many questions as to the real truth with reference to the compilation of the first three Gospels, questions which probably will never be solved. What, however, concerns the present purpose is that of the three the only eye-witness is Matthew, The source from which Mark and Luke derived their information is unknown, and ever will remain so. If not from Matthew (always a.s.suming him to be the writer of the first Gospel), or from the same source as Matthew, it would be remarkable that their mode of narrating these details was so similar to his. How far then, does John, the other eye-witness, bear out Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Strange to relate, he has not one word of the casting out of devils, or of the cures of bodily distresses mentioned by the other three. Nor does he confirm the raising of Jairus' daughter, although he himself and James and Peter were the only three said to have been admitted by Jesus to witness this event, nor the resuscitation of the son of the widow of Nain, nor the calming of the storm, nor the feeding of the four thousand, nor the cursing of the fig-tree, nor the fish with the tribute money, nor the miraculous haul of fishes at his own calling to be a disciple. The miracles he does mention are _seven in all, and of these five are net in the other gospels_, although of the most striking character. They are,

1. The raising of Lazarus, four days dead.

2. Turning water into wine.

3. Curing a n.o.bleman's son, at a distance, of fever.

4. Curing a man blind from his birth.

5. Curing a man, at the pool of Bethesda, with an infirmity of thirty-eight years' standing.

Of the twenty-four miracles recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, John, said to have been the eye-witness of all, confirms only two--viz., the feeding of the five thousand, and the walking on the sea.

These two miracles are thus a chronological break, in all the Gospel narratives, of the movements of Jesus, by which a clear comparison can be made, thus:--

[Ill.u.s.tration: table 058]

[Ill.u.s.tration: table 059]

As to the subsequent events, from the entrance into Jerusalem to the crucifixion, the four gospels agree in the main, though they differ in several important particulars. But from the entrance into Jerusalem back to the feeding of the five thousand, how utter the divergence! And, again, from the feeding of the five thousand back to John's baptism, how irreconcilable the accounts of the two professed eyewitnesses represented as fellow-travellers over the greater part of the journeyings mentioned! The first three gospels place all Jesus' ministry and miracles, and the calling of his disciples, as to time, after John's imprisonment, as to place, in Galilee and its neighbourhood, until he went up once for all to Jerusalem, from which he never returned. John, on the contrary, makes his ministry commence before the Baptist's imprisonment, places the calling of two of the same disciples, Andrew and Peter, while Jesus was a follower of the Baptist, and mentions three or four visits to Jerusalem before the final entry on the back of an a.s.s. Moreover, the discourses recorded in John are very unlike the discourses in the other three narratives, and, what strikes as very remarkable, there are no parables in the fourth Gospel.

Here, then, are two witnesses, followers of Jesus, giving different and irreconcilable accounts of his ministry, his wanderings, his public utterances, his miracles; agreeing, indeed, thus far, that they both record two of the last, but even with these two (see the two paragraphs marked 9 and i above) at variance with each other in several details.

Of two ordinarily intelligent eye-witnesses can it be that one would represent Jesus as "sending the mult.i.tude away," and the other as "departing from them," and the mult.i.tude next day being in the same place? or would one a.s.sert that he "constrained his disciples to take s.h.i.+p" and the other that he left his disciples, and that they took s.h.i.+p afterwards of their own accord? And yet this is what two, not ordinarily intelligent--for as to that nothing is known--but divinely inspired and divinely guided eye-witnesses affirm.

The miracles recorded in the four gospels are all of a benevolent character, except the cursing of the fig-tree and the permission given to the devils to go into the herd of swine. But notwithstanding "the good-will to men" thus displayed, the Gospels avow that Jesus'

wonder-working failed to convince or to captivate by far the greater part of his contemporaries. Chorazin, Bethsaida, Tyre, Sidon, and Capernaum are all denounced, and a.s.signed a doom more terrible than that of Sodom and Gomorrah, because of their unbelief. And against this general contemporaneous unbelief what is there to place? The single testimony of Matthew the publican for a score of miracles which he is said to have witnessed, confirmed by the hearsay testimony of Mark and Luke, but quite unsupported by the testimony of John the Galilean fisherman, who is also said to have witnessed them. Again, the single testimony of John, unsupported by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for five most marvellous events, including the raising from the dead of a man who had been some time buried. The united testimony, weakened by divergence in detail, of Matthew and John, for only two of the alleged miracles, and the hearsay account of Luke for the raising from the dead of the son of the widow of Nain, quite unsupported by either Matthew or John. And then recurs the question: Would an Almighty maker of the universe, wis.h.i.+ng to show compa.s.sion to his creatures, and to accredit, not only to the men living at the time of his appearance, but to all subsequent ages, by undoubted testimonies, a messenger from himself (the son of his own right hand), and to accredit him, moreover, by such testimonies as were most suited to the comprehension of men, have allowed the record of these credentials, on belief or unbelief on which the eternal doom of each individual man henceforth would depend, to rest on evidence so worthless--taken at its very best--as this?

2. The following miraculous events are ascribed to the apostles:--

Acts ii. 1-13. The gift of tongues.

" ii. 43. Wonders and signs generally.

" iii. 1-11. Cure of lame man by Peter and John.

" v. 1-11. The yielding up the ghost by Ananias and Sapphira at the word of Peter.

" v. 15, 16. Cures at the least shadow of Peter.

" v. 17-20. Opening of the prison for Peter and John by the angel of the Lord.

" vi. 8. Stephen's wonders and miracles.

" viii. 5-8. Cures by Philip of unclean spirits, and of the palsied and lame.

" ix. 13-22. Ananias cures Saul of blindness.

" ix. 32-35. Cure by Peter of one sick of the palsy.

" ix. 36-43. Peter restores Dorcas to life.

Acts x. 1-48. Angel-appearance to Cornelius; trance of Peter.

" xii. 7-10. Opening of the prison for Peter by an angel of the Lord.

" xiii. 8-11. Blinding of Elymas by Paul.

" xiv. 3. Signs and wonders generally by Paul and Barnabas.

" xiv. 8-10. Cure of a cripple by Paul.

" xvi. 16-18. Curing a damsel possessed by a spirit of divination.

" xvi. 25-27. Earthquake while Paul and Silas were singing praises to G.o.d in the stocks at Philippi.

" xix. 6. Disciples at Ephesus speaking with tongues when Paul laid his hands on them.

" xix. 11, 12. Diseases and evil spirits expelled by ap.r.o.ns and handkerchiefs taken from Paul's body.

" xix. 15. Testimony of the evil spirit to Jesus and Paul.

" xx. 9-12. Restoration of Eutychus by Paul.

" xxviii. 4. Viper shaken off Paul's hand without hurting him.

" xxviii. 8. b.l.o.o.d.y flux and other diseases cured.